Standardisation Policy More Effective Than Legislation On IP?
,----[ Quote ]
| The balance between the much wanted law-like standards and IPR is difficult,
| noted the study, because “the underlying philosophies of standardisation and
| IPR-protection are seen as opposite. Whereas standardisation intends to put
| ideas into the public domain, protection of IPR makes them private property.”
| Furthermore, the legal framework of standardisation is blurred, while
| recognition of private rights over private creations is clear and patent
| ambushes (patent claims made late in the development of a standardisation
| process) are prevailing in court cases. The European Commission so far has
| tried to alleviate the problem by passing so-called FRAND rules that try to
| ensure “fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory” licensing when it comes to
| standards. A new ETSI IPR policy adopted in 2006 addressed the problem of IPR
| owners not agreeing to licences, yet the problem still is not really
| resolved, according to the study.
`----
http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/index.php?p=894
Just ask Samba about it. Another new fart war (Armageddon from which only
lawyers win) here:
Murdoch v Branson in UK TV patent battle
,----[ Quote ]
| It appears that Richard Branson and Rupert Murdoch are still unable to get
| along together. After last year's battle over whether or not to broadcast Sky
| channels on Virgin Media's UK cable television network, Rupert is now (at
| least indirectly) bringing out his IP lawyers in an apparent attempt to
| threaten Virgin in other ways.
`----
http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2008/01/murdoch-v-branson-in-uk-tv-patent.html
Related:
Microsoft patents by Brian Jones
,----[ Quote ]
| For fun we just did a quick search of published US patent applications
| with "Brian Jones" as an author, and "Microsoft" as the assignee.
|
| [...]
|
| Some of these, like the packing ones, seem to apply directly to OOXML. What
| isn't clear to us is why Microsoft would pursue patent protection for patents
| rights that their are promising that they won't assert over users of OOXML.
`----
http://www.noooxml.org/forum/t-35323/microsoft-patents-by-brian-jones
Wishful Spinning
,----[ Quote ]
| OOXML gets adopted. More and more projects are started. Let's see which of
| these would survive without funding. Meanwhile a spin factory sends out
| success stories that most bloggers find worthless to discuss. It is possible
| to get the Krauts on board that are supposed to review OOXML but would OOXML
| survive a review by the crowds?
`----
http://www.noooxml.org/forum/t-35292/wishful-spinning
Digging in the Comments: Patents
,----[ Quote ]
| Patent licensing is probably the most important aspect for all third parties
| that want to implement or use the Open XML specification. Unfortunately the
| Ballot Resolution Meeting cannot discuss these aspects because only technical
| and editorial issues would get resolved.
|
| [...]
|
| When you have a patent which covers Open XML and you refuse to license it,
| the standard process gets stalled. Large companies in the standardization
| process are reluctant to use that nuke option. Given the ambush that the
| software patent practice means today it is quite possible that Open XML
| infringes a patent and all parties eventually have an obligation to license
| it.
`----
http://www.noooxml.org/forum/t-31491/digging-in-the-comments:patents
Patent threat looms large over OOXML
,----[ Quote ]
| "If OOXML goes through as an ISO standard, the IT industry, government and
| business will encumbered with a 6000-page specification peppered with
| potential patent liabilities" said NZOSS President Don Christie.
|
| "Patent threats have already been used to spread doubt amongst organisations
| keen to take advantage of the benefits of open source. No one knows whether
| such claims have any merit, but it is calculated to deter the development and
| use of open and alternative toolsets."
`----
http://nzoss.org.nz/node/179
Cyberlaw OOXML Seminar 14 December
,----[ Quote ]
| However, this raises the issue - what assurance does a developer have that
| such a large specification is not the subject of third party patent claims?
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| The pedigree of the specification is certainly no reason for hope, Microsoft
| has been the target of third party patent claims for some time now including
| some high profile losses in patent suits. The fact that the specification has
| been developed behind closed doors and on a fast track means that there has
| been no adequate opportunity to evaluate the likelihood of third party patent
| claims against the specifications. The sheer size of the document suggests
| there will be at least a couple hiding in there somewhere.
`----
http://brendanscott.wordpress.com/2007/12/13/cyberlaw-ooxml-seminar-14-december/
ISO warned about possible patent violations of DIS29500 (aka OOXML)
,----[ Quote ]
| I have just send the following email to ISO members (you can find some of
| their email addresses on the INCTIS website) to warn them about the possible
| patent ambush...
`----
http://jeremywang67.blogspot.com/2008/01/iso-warned-about-possible-patent.html
|
|
